This in-depth examination of water law and management in Oregon provides a compelling perspective on a major environmental issues in the American West--the region's diminishing water supply. Bastasch offers thorough yet accessible explanations of a variety of water issues and controversies, bringing focus and clarity to a murky, complex subject. From Oregonians seeking interesting facts about their state's water riches to water specialists and users in need of a handy reference to Oregon's water law, the handbook offers a key to understanding how we use this precious and scarce resource.

The overall purpose of this research is to assess the Oregon public's capacity to address water resources disturbances through civil society. According to scientists and resource managers, Oregon's water resources are over taxed and at risk, with future projections placing additional stress from climate change and population growth. Oregon's 2009 House Bill 3369 directed the Oregon Water Resources Department to develop a statewide Integrated Water Resource Strategy (IWRS) to address these challenges and meet current and future water needs. Prior to IWRS' implementation it is important to understand if the Oregon public has the capacity to understand and respond to disturbances in water resources as the inability to respond can undermine the state's IWRS implementation. For this study a "disturbance" is a change in Oregon's water quantity, quality and or availability. The ability to respond to a disturbance by the public is associated with the concept of civil society. Civil society is a method where members of Oregon's public can understand and engage in water resource issues in Oregon and has three key components: (a) being informed about a policy issue; (b) interacting with others about the issue; and (c) engaging in a practice to make a policy change. Yet, even with the conditions in place for a civil society response to a disturbance, management implementation can be inhibited due to low knowledge and inaccurate risk perception. Using a statewide mail survey to 1,563 randomly selected households, this study examined the Oregon public's dimensions of civil society, knowledge, and risk perception concerning Oregon's water resources. Findings suggest the public has the dimensions of civil society in place to respond to a disturbance in Oregon's water resources, as well as sufficient risk perception. However, the public's level of factual and self-assessed knowledge is less than optimal. This low level of knowledge has the potential to inhibit or limit water resource management efforts by the state.

Integrated water management is a wicked public policy problem with no clear path to resolution. This dissertation is an in-depth qualitative comparative analysis of two collaborative governance processes created to tackle complex water problems in New Zealand and Oregon, U.S.A. Both cases convened a wide range of state and non-state actors in efforts to find common ground, build consensus for change, and develop innovative water policy solutions. The goal of this comparative case study analysis is to gain a better understanding of collaborative network governance frameworks as applied to integrated water management and primary factors for success. The proposition posits that collaborative networks involving public, private, and non-profit actors are better equipped than government-driven efforts to develop desired outcomes. To test this proposition, the research questions probe the role of state and non-state policy actors, conditions for collaboration, strength of actor ties, development of trust and social capital, barriers to success, and the role of climate change as a policy driver in these two case studies. The comparative case study analysis yields fascinating insights that adds to the network governance literature. In the New Zealand case, a collaborative-led process called the Land and Water Forum (LAWF) showed that this ongoing network offers benefits to creating consensus on complex water issues. LAWF succeeded in moving policy conversations forward where previous government-led efforts had failed. Within the LAWF collaborative network, non-state actors formed strong ties; however, relationships with state actors exhibited weaker ties. With Oregon's integrated water policy, a collaborative network approach created a more conducive environment for meaningful dialogue among vested interests, and built some levels of interdependency and trust, thus generating a wider array of policy options than through previous legislative and bureaucratic efforts. However, long-standing political, legal, and institutional challenges continue to constrain effective integrated water management and the delivery of integrated outcomes in Oregon. The Oregon case did not exhibit strong leadership within the collaborative to broker challenging policy issues. Also, it faced implementation challenges as one state agency was given responsibility for stewarding integrated water management but lacked authority for implementation or coordination with other state agencies. Overcoming fragmented natural resource governance arrangements remains a daunting challenge. This research revealed three key findings: (1) in both cases, collaborative network governance worked well for framing and designing new integrated water policies, but encountered implementation challenges; (2) managing the complexities around the intersection of top-down, vertical command and control governance with horizontal collaborative approaches remains an ongoing challenge to New Public Governance; and (3) the two cases represent examples of the use of formal and informal processes for policy development. The benefits of collaborative governance for policy development are substantial, and the limitations appear to be obstacles to overcome and not fatal flaws. The main challenge lies in transitioning from policy and planning to implementing changes on the ground affecting the way we manage water today and in the future.